re: to yisru yidsRyous,You keep changing your hit list. Your...

re: to yisru yidsRyous,

You keep changing your hit list. Your simple mate domain will accuse me of hate for pointing that out.


Here's a little article by better jews than you in the Israeli Peace Bloc:

As the American and British governments (with the Australians tagging along) very publicly plan and prepare a war of aggression which will clearly be a "crime against peace" under the Nuremberg Principles, precisely the crime for which German and Japanese leaders were executed after the Second World War, it may be useful to put the coming attack by white, English-speaking, Judeo-Christians on the Arab and Muslim world (which is precisely how it is viewed in this part of the world) into legal and historical context.

With that in mind, I am typing below the Nuremberg Principles (as affirmed by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 94 (1) of 1946), preceded by a relevant quotation from US Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, the Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg
Tribunal.


"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to an aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy". -- Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNIZED IN THE CHARTER OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL AND IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPLE I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

PRINCIPLE II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

PRINCIPLE III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him of responsibility under international law.

PRINCIPLE IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

PRINCIPLE V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

PRINCIPLE VI

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned in (i).

(b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws and customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

PRINCIPLE VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.


If you have been puzzled as to why the Bush regime has been so fiercely opposed to the new International Criminal Tribunal, the permanent forum for applying the
Nuremberg Principles, you should no longer be.